Humans have a great hunger for explanation. It may be one of the main reasons why humanity so universally has religion, since religions do aspire to provide explanations.
We come to our individual consciousness in a mysterious universe and long to understand it. Most religions offer a cosmology and a biology, a theory of life, a theory of origins, and reasons for existence. In doing so, they demonstrate that religion is, in a sense, science; it's just bad science.
Don't fall for the argument that religion and science operate on separate dimensions and are concerned with quite separate sorts of questions. Religions have historically always attempted to answer the questions that properly belong to science. Thus religions should not be allowed now to retreat away from the ground upon which they have traditionally attempted to fight. They do offer both a cosmology and a biology; however, in both cases it is false.
Science and Religion Essays
Consolation is harder for science to provide. Unlike religion, science cannot offer the bereaved a glorious reunion with their loved ones in the hereafter. Those wronged on this earth cannot, on a scientific view, anticipate a sweet comeuppance for their tormentors in a life to come. It could be argued that, if the idea of an afterlife is an illusion as I believe it is , the consolation it offers is hollow. But that's not necessarily so; a false belief can be just as comforting as a true one, provided the believer never discovers its falsity. But if consolation comes that cheap, science can weigh in with other cheap palliatives, such as pain-killing drugs, whose comfort may or may not be illusory, but they do work.
Uplift, however, is where science really comes into its own. All the great religions have a place for awe, for ecstatic transport at the wonder and beauty of creation. And it's exactly this feeling of spine-shivering, breath-catching awe -- almost worship -- this flooding of the chest with ecstatic wonder, that modern science can provide.
And it does so beyond the wildest dreams of saints and mystics. The fact that the supernatural has no place in our explanations, in our understanding of so much about the universe and life, doesn't diminish the awe. Quite the contrary. The merest glance through a microscope at the brain of an ant or through a telescope at a long-ago galaxy of a billion worlds is enough to render poky and parochial the very psalms of praise.
Now, as I say, when it is put to me that science or some particular part of science, like evolutionary theory, is just a religion like any other, I usually deny it with indignation. But I've begun to wonder whether perhaps that's the wrong tactic. Perhaps the right tactic is to accept the charge gratefully and demand equal time for science in religious education classes. And the more I think about it, the more I realize that an excellent case could be made for this.
So I want to talk a little bit about religious education and the place that science might play in it.
Religious Influence in Society | Freedom Magazine
I do feel very strongly about the way children are brought up. I'm not entirely familiar with the way things are in the United States, and what I say may have more relevance to the United Kingdom, where there is state-obliged, legally-enforced religious instruction for all children. That's unconstitutional in the United States, but I presume that children are nevertheless given religious instruction in whatever particular religion their parents deem suitable. Which brings me to my point about mental child abuse.
In a issue of the Independent , one of London's leading newspapers, there was a photograph of a rather sweet and touching scene. It was Christmas time, and the picture showed three children dressed up as the three wise men for a nativity play. The accompanying story described one child as a Muslim, one as a Hindu, and one as a Christian. The supposedly sweet and touching point of the story was that they were all taking part in this Nativity play.
What is not sweet and touching is that these children were all four years old. How can you possibly describe a child of four as a Muslim or a Christian or a Hindu or a Jew? Would you talk about a four-year-old economic monetarist?
Would you talk about a four-year-old neo-isolationist or a four-year-old liberal Republican? There are opinions about the cosmos and the world that children, once grown, will presumably be in a position to evaluate for themselves. Religion is the one field in our culture about which it is absolutely accepted, without question -- without even noticing how bizarre it is -- that parents have a total and absolute say in what their children are going to be, how their children are going to be raised, what opinions their children are going to have about the cosmos, about life, about existence.
455 Words Short Essay on Science and Religion
Do you see what I mean about mental child abuse? Looking now at the various things that religious education might be expected to accomplish, one of its aims could be to encourage children to reflect upon the deep questions of existence, to invite them to rise above the humdrum preoccupations of ordinary life and think sub specie aeternitatis. Science can offer a vision of life and the universe which, as I've already remarked, for humbling poetic inspiration far outclasses any of the mutually contradictory faiths and disappointingly recent traditions of the world's religions.
For example, how could children in religious education classes fail to be inspired if we could get across to them some inkling of the age of the universe?
Suppose that, at the moment of Christ's death, the news of it had started traveling at the maximum possible speed around the universe outwards from the earth. How far would the terrible tidings have traveled by now? While their relationship is complex, its historical trajectory is one of co-evolution, mapping the gradual accumulation of adaptive responses to each other Free Essays words 2. They both provide an explanation of the world and of the human being, but while science is based on the scientific evidence, meaning that it requires empirical proof, religion is faith driven, therefore belief without evidence.
As mentioned by professor Skakle during the lecture, 4 models for science and religion interaction have been identified and can be described as conflict between the disciplines, independence between the disciplines, dialogue between the disciplines and integration of both in one field Barbour, Some believe there are major differences in science and religion and that the two can never coexist while others believe that science is in fact evidence that religious views are correct. To better understand and answer the question of whether the two sides really do conflict we will look at: my view on the subject, the definitions of both science and religion, basic arguments of both sides, scientific evolution, differing religions and religious views, the compatible versus incompatible argument, how religion has influenced science and views from t Good Essays words 5.
mettmcinnewstec.tk However, even though the scientific approval of his theory was close to becoming worldwide, there have been countless opposition groups, predominantly amongst the religious believers. In the five models on science and religion I believe that Conflict best describes the relationship between the two. Conflict tells how either science is completely right and religion is wrong or the other way around and that religion and science are completely different The age of Enlightenment included a broad scope of intellectual ideas based on reason as the primary source of legitimacy during the eighteenth century.
Ideals such as liberty, tolerance, constitutional government, and the separation of church and state were introduced and progressed. The age of enlightenment was preceded by and closely related to the scientific revolution.
Scientific discoveries challenged the traditional thought patterns about the world The controversy is not only common between one sole community, but affects a variety. Einstein began questioning the veracity of the Bible and discontinued the preparation for his bar mitzvah. Some biographers point to this early religious skepticism as the source of Einstein's freedom of thought and intellectual independence as a scientist; in any case, it is clear that his defiance of authority was to remain an important aspect of his thinking and his personality for the rest of his life.
Einstein remained indifferent to religious conventions and precepts throughout his adult life. His first wife, Mileva Maric, was a member of the Greek Orthodox Church, and the marriage took place without the presence of a rabbi or a priest. Although the religious difference caused both sets of parents to object to the marriage, it did not trouble Einstein: he did not want his children to receive any form of religious instruction and the couple practiced no formal religion in their home.
Additionally, Einstein asked to be cremated rather than buried in the Jewish tradition. Thus his disregard for religious rituals lasted his whole life. Yet in spite of his disdain for religious instruction in accordance with any particular denominational tradition, Einstein nonetheless always maintained a pious sentiment of inspired religious devotion.
He identified very closely with the seventeenth-century Dutch Jewish philosopher Baruch Spinoza, who rejected the traditional theistic concept of God in favor of an impersonal cosmic order. Spinoza believed that the universe is governed by a mechanical and mathematical order such that all events in nature occur according to immutable laws of cause and effect. He held that God is devoid of ethical properties and therefore does not reward or punish human behavior.
Einstein, who studied Spinoza's Ethics in Bern with his friends of the Olympia Academy, was drawn to this philosopher because they shared a love of solitude and the experience of having rejected their Jewish religious tradition.